Since then, no further communication on this matter has been made by either side and the 1st Respondent who is the Republic of Burundi is yet to allow this Task Force to go there and undertake investigations. 111. During the hearing of the instant case held on 11th February 2015, in response to the question put to him as why the 2nd Respondent had not undertaken actions prescribed in Article 29 of the Treaty in the event that a Partner State is not being cooperative to allow him carrying out investigations on alleged violations of Treaty provisions, we heard learned Counsel to be intimating that the Secretary General had undertaken a diplomatic visit to the Republic of Burundi in which the issue of the stalled work of the Task Force was raised. He then conceded, however, that now that the matter was before this Court, any order that the Court might take would be further support for the 2nd Respondent to execute investigations to ensure that the Republic of Burundi is brought to compliance with the Treaty obligations. 112. In the matter at hand, we must note at this juncture that although some actions have been undertaken in line with the 2nd Respondent’s responsibilities under Article 71(1)(d) of the Treaty, no effective action to overcome the 1st Respondent’s lack of cooperation was initiated as such an action would be effected under Article 29 of the Treaty. 113. In this regard, we are of the view that it is the duty of the 2nd Respondent to actively and proactively carry out his Treaty functions for the sake of bringing Partner States in compliance with Treaty obligations they voluntarily subscribed to in order to ensure the advancement of East African integration. We shall make an order in this regard later in the judgment. REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 37